ws-rx message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: Definition for "Reliable Message"
- From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:15:49 -0400
IJDGI (I just don't get it).
There's no such thing as a "reliable
message". There can be reliable protocols, reliable transports
but not a "reliable message".
There can be a "message that is transmitted reliably" or a "message
transmitted over a reliable transport/protocol",
but not a "reliable message".
Cheers,
Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html
phone: +1 508 377 9295
"Duane Nickull" <dnickull@adobe.com>
wrote on 10/25/2005 11:01:13 AM:
> Jacques:
>
> Would a more generic entry be better to give
us latitude to cover
> future items.
>
> “Reliable Message: A message that behaves exactly
as the sender
> designed it to with respect to delivery to its destination or
> notifies the sender in the event it encountered problems. The
gamut
> of behavior is (not an exclusive list):
> [insert list of current expectations]”
>
> Duane
>
>
> From: Jacques Durand [mailto:JDurand@us.fujitsu.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 7:41 PM
> To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: Definition for "Reliable Message"
>
> Title: Definition for "Reliable Message"
>
> Description: there are several references to
"reliable message"
> (section 1, 2 intro, 2.1, 2.3) that are not backed by a clear definition.
>
> Justification: Terminology section is defining
key concepts, yet
> does not explain what a reliable message is (and now other
> definitions are also referencing "reliable message"). The
main
> requirement of inclusion of a wsrm:Sequence element which could back
> an intuitive definition, is not currently related to this expression
> at all, (related to DA instead) which is confusing.
>
> Target: core
>
> Type: editorial
>
> Proposal:
> 1- Add a terminology entry. It could be:
> Reliable message: a message submitted by the
Application Source to
> an RM Source via the "Send" operation,
> for transmission over the protocol defined in
this specification.
> 2- In 3.1: associate the
main protocol requirement (Sequence
> element) with the definition of "reliable message" instead
of with a
> vague requirement of being subject to some DA:
> Replace:
> "Messages for which the delivery assurance
applies MUST contain a
> <wsrm:Sequence> header block."
> With:
> "Reliable Messages MUST contain a <wsrm:Sequence>
header block."
> (DA and protocol being in fact separately defined,
DA should now
> more abstractly mandate the use of "reliable messages" if
we still
> want to pre-req one to the other.)
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]